Skip Nav | Home | Mobile | Editorial Guidelines | Mission Statement | About Us | Contact | Help | Security | Support Us

World

Ahmadinejad’s UN 9-11 Speech

Gideon Polya | 27.09.2010 17:20 | Anti-militarism | Other Press | Social Struggles | Sheffield | World

Top scientists and intelligence experts dispute the “official US version” of what happened on 9-11 and variously assert that people within the US Government did 9-11 (possibly with Israeli assistance).

President Ahmadinejad’s 9-11 speech at the UN merely advances 3 logical, testable, scientific hypotheses about 9-11 but has immediately elicited hysterical, egregiously dishonest, anti-science and anti-truth responses from Western leaders and Mainstream media.

President Ahmadinejad delivers his speech at UN General Assembly, 23 Sept. 2010
President Ahmadinejad delivers his speech at UN General Assembly, 23 Sept. 2010


Top scientists and intelligence experts dispute the “official US version” of what happened on 9-11 and variously assert that people within the US Government did 9-11 (possibly with Israeli assistance). President Ahmadinejad’s 9-11 speech at the UN merely advances 3 logical, testable, scientific hypotheses about 9-11 but has immediately elicited hysterical, egregiously dishonest, anti-science and anti-truth responses from Western leaders and Mainstream media.

The immediate responses involved a walk-out of US representatives and its lackeys from 30 countries, including Australia, Britain, Sweden and Spain, from the speech itself – they simply didn’t want to hear anything differing from the “official US version” of 9-11.

Western media and politicians immediately started falsely and hysterically reporting Ahmadinejad’s comments on 9-11. President Ahmadinejad’s speech merely offered 3 scientific hypotheses about the cause of 9-11, namely (1) the “official US version” of a “terrorist group”, (2) US responsibility and (3) US complicity in allowing a terrorist operation to proceed.

The UK BBC was an exception and its report was factual:

“23 September 2010. The US and other delegations at the 65th UN General Assembly have walked out in protest at the speech by the Iranian president. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said some saw the 11 September attacks on the US as part of a US conspiracy to protect Israel. He was speaking on the first day of the week-long UN diplomatic marathon.”

Similarly the Australian ABC:

“Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has told the United Nations that most people believe the US government was responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001.”

Indeed the only arguable part of President Ahmadinejad’s speech was “The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view [that the US did 9-11]” – he would probably have been correct in stating that a “substantial proportion” rather than “the majority” thought that the US was involved in the 9-11 atrocity. Thus prior Mainstream polls have indicated that about one third of Americans believe that 9-11 was an inside job involving the US Government.

Science is about critically testing potentially falsifiable hypotheses and that is all that President Ahmadinejad has advocated in relation to 9-11:

“It is proposed that the United Nations set up an independent fact-finding group for the event of the II September so that in the future expressing views about it is not forbidden.”

In contrast, the US and US lackey representatives who blocked their ears and walked out of the UN General Assembly and those who then lied about President Ahmadinejad’s speech must be condemned for an anti-science stance that is antithetical to finding out what happened on 9-11 and getting justice for the victims and their relatives.

To read what President Ahmadinejad actually said here is the transcript of President Ahmadinejad’s speech to the UN on 23 September 2010

Having read what President Ahmadinejad actually said, now consider the offensive, anti-science lying by Obama, US lackeys and Western media who – for what ever reasons – are opposed to a scientific approach to 9-11.

Obama's response on Ahmadinejad’s call for scientific investigation of 9-11 (BBC):

“"There were candlelight vigils and I think a natural sense of shared humanity and sympathy was expressed within Iran. It just shows once again the difference between how the Iranian leadership and this regime operates and how I think the vast majority of the Iranian people, who are respectful and thoughtful, think about these issues….It was offensive. It was hateful. And particularly for him to make the statement here in Manhattan, just a little north of Ground Zero, where families lost their loved ones. People of all faiths, all ethnicities who see this as the seminal tragedy of this generation. For him to make a statement like that was inexcusable."

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon also condemned Ahmadinejad’s call for scientific investigation of 9-11 (Ynet)

"I strongly condemn the comments made yesterday by a leader of a delegation that called into question the cause of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on US soil. It is unacceptable for the platform of the General Assembly of the United Nations to be misused in this way.“

EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton has said the following:

"[Ahmadinejad’s suggestion] that the United States was in any way responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks or that the majority of people in the US believe this to be the case, is outrageous and unacceptable. It is for this reason that all representatives of the 27 nations of the EU walked out."

The Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post reported President Ahmadinejad’s speech under the following headline: “A’jad spew-&-shoo. US and world diplos walk out on Iranian’s vile 9/11 rant at UN”.

President Ahmadinejad, like all leaders, can be legitimately criticized for all sorts of things. However on 9-11 he is correct in demanding a proper scientific inquiry into who did 9-11. Those like war criminal Obama who condemn Ahmadinejad’s call for a proper inquiry into 9-11 are in effect calling for an ongoing cover-up and can thus be seen to be witting or unwitting accessories after the fact of the 9-11 atrocity.

Further, the deaths associated with the 9-11 atrocity (3,000) are dwarfed by the 8 million violent deaths and non-violent avoidable deaths in the post-9-11, US-led War on Terror, the breakdown being 2.5 million (Iraq), 4.5 million (Afghanistan) and 0.8 million global opiate drug-related deaths linked to US Alliance restoration of the Taliban-destroyed Afghan opium industry (from 6% of world market share in 2001 to over 90% today).

A sensible way to publicly get to the truth about 9-11 as advocated by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be war crimes trials before the International Criminal Court (ICC) of US Alliance leaders associated with the ongoing Muslim Holocaust and with charges including, as appropriate, complicity in 9-11 or being accessories after the fact of 9-11. George Bush, Tony Blair, Barack Obama, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy, Stephen Harper, Angela Merkel, John Howard, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, their “we were just obeying orders” subordinates and their Mainstream media collaborators should all be arraigned before the International Criminal Court.

Gideon Polya
- Homepage: http://mwcnews.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5455&Itemid=126

Comments

Hide the following 6 comments

International law expert: Ahmadinejad is right about 9/11!

27.09.2010 17:33


An international lawyer says many now question the truth behind the 9/11 attacks, and that American citizens are demanding an international probe into the incident.

"Ahmadinejad is absolutely rational and correct on this, that the American people are now coming to the point of demanding an international inquiry (into the 9/11 attacks), " Franklin Lamb told Press TV. [Listen to Franklin Lamb's radio interview [1] with Kevin Barrett of Muslims for 9/11 Truth. [2] )

The Beirut-based lawyer was referring to remarks by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [3] in his address to the 65th UN General Assembly that the 9/11 incident might have been the result of an inside job in the United States.

"This call [for an international investigation] didn't start in the Middle East. It stated more than a year ago in Canada, in Europe, in Latin America, and increasingly in America itself," he continued.

"There are just too many questions raised by architects, by pilots [4], by experts [5], by engineers [6], by [US Department of] Homeland Security employees and the FBI," the international lawyer reiterated.

"There is every reason to have an inquiry and the [US President Barack] Obama administration should join this call, not oppose it," he underlined.

The lawyer added what President Ahmadinejad said was a 'logical proposal' and that "the president of Iran is now in synchronization with the majority of the American people. [7] "

* * *

"Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks, down five points since May 2002." Angus Reid poll, 2006 [7]

_______________________


Notes:

[1]  http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2010/05/franklin-lamb-and-gordon-duff-on-truth-jihad-radio/

[2]  http://www.m911t.blogspot.com/

[3]  http://m911t.blogspot.com/2010/09/ahmadinejad-applauded-at-un-for-telling.html

[4]  http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/

[5]  http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

[6]  http://www.ae911truth.org/

[7]  http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/americans_question_bush_on_9_11_intelligence/

_______________________

Franklin Lamb
- Homepage: http://m911t.blogspot.com/2010/09/international-law-expert-ahmadinejad-is.html


Haha

27.09.2010 17:49

Way to sound like a nutjob

Shedwood Ballsworthy


Flashback: Néjàd vu, all over again: The media, 'pretext', context & 9/11

27.09.2010 17:50



from the archives:


Néjàd vu, all over again: The media, 'pretext', context & 9/11

by Nima Shirazi, 7 March 2010


Despite a nearly endless barrage of reporting on Iran's nuclear energy program, the US government's push for a new round of sanctions, and on-going efforts to foment regime change in the Islamic Republic, all had been relatively quiet on the Ahmadinejad front in the Western press for some time.

Until now.

The mainstream media's favorite scapegoat, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, resurfaced on Saturday amidst reports that he called the attacks of September 11, 2001 "a big lie." According to the immediate and rabid response of virtually every Western news network around, this was simply the latest insane claim of the same raving madman who has previously threatened to wipe a foreign state off the map and denied the Holocaust.

Yet, as with those other mistranslated or misunderstood statements, this new claim hardly stands up to even the most cursory scrutiny, as it has been reported with little accompanying context and comparison. According to a translation by Reuters, Ahmadinejad, addressing the staff of the Iranian Intelligence Ministry, stated that, "The September 11 incident was a big fabrication as a pretext for the campaign against terrorism and a prelude for staging an invasion against Afghanistan." PressTV translated the President as saying that the circumstances of 9/11 were a "big lie intended to serve as a pretext for fighting terrorism and setting the grounds for sending troops to Afghanistan."

Most of the press, including CBS, Huffington Post, and Fox, ran with an Associated Press report by Ali Akbar Dareini entitled, "Iran's Ahmadinejad: Sept. 11 attacks a 'big lie'" while CNN and Ha'aretz reprinted the AP with some slight variations like using the headline "Ahmadinejad Calls 9/11 'A Big Fabrication'."

Robert Mackey, writing for The New York Times editorialized that Ahmadinejad told Iranian intelligence officials that the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City was "staged."

By reporting that he called 9/11 a "lie" or "fabrication," the press has completely subverted the meaning of Ahmadinejad's actual statement. Headlines and ledes like the ones printed by the mainstream media give the intentionally misleading interpretation that Ahmadinejad claimed that 9/11 didn't actually happen. But the full quote obviously reveals something quite different. The events of 9/11 - that hijacked airplanes were flown into buildings, killing tens of hundreds of people - is not questioned or denied by Ahmadinejad in these statements. The attacks, in and of themselves, are not debated or disputed. What Ahmadinejad says is that the event itself was the result of, as PressTV reports, a premeditated "scenario and a sophisticated intelligence measure," that was subsequently used as an excuse to justify the so-called "War on Terror" and invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

According to the official story, the 9/11 attacks were carried out by 19 hijackers, none of whom were from Afghanistan. 15 were Saudi Arabian, two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was Egyptian, and one Lebanese. None of them lived in Afghanistan. They lived in Hamburg, Germany. They didn't train in Afghanistan, but rather in Sarasota, Florida. They didn't go to flight school in Afghanistan, but in Minnesota. The attacks were reportedly planned in many places, including Falls Church, Virginia and Paris, France, but not including Afghanistan.

Nevertheless, the United States began its illegal bombing campaign in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001.

Despite repeated offers by the Taliban leadership to apprehend and hand over bin Laden for trial (with or without actual evidence linking him to 9/11), the US refused to even respond to such offers and continued its devastating air strikes. By early December 2001, over 6,500 tons of munitions had been dropped on Afghanistan by US forces, including approximately 12,000 bombs and missiles. By the end of March 2002, over 21,000 bombs and missiles had been dropped.

After a relentless misinformation campaign reliant on associating Saddam Hussein with the 9/11 attacks, the United States illegally invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003. During the very first month of the assault, US forces dropped almost 30,000 munitions and fired 300,000 bullets. In that same time, according to conservative estimates, US air strikes and ground troops murdered over 7,000 Iraqi civilians.

By September 2003, 70% of Americans still believed that Saddam Hussein "was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon," despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Considering these facts, it hardly seems a stretch to state that 9/11 was used as a pretext by the US government to carry out predetermined foreign policy goals.

In short, President Ahmadinejad does not claim that 9/11 itself is a lie. He never has. In May 2006, in a letter written directly to George W. Bush, Ahmadinejad states, clearly and unequivocally,

"September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies."

Ahmadinejad's words echo those of his predecessor, President Mohammad Khatami, who in the wake of the attacks declared, "On behalf of the Iranian people and the Islamic Republic, I denounce the terrorist measures, which led to the killing of defenseless people, and I express my deep sorrow and sympathy with the American people." Furthermore, Iran was one of the first countries to hold candle-light vigils in solidarity and sympathy with the victims of the attacks.

What Ahmadinejad does claim, however, is that the official story of the events - publicly memorialized in the publication of the US government-sponsored The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission) - is dubious, incomplete, and may very well have been the result of well-calculated misinformation and deliberate action (or, perhaps, inaction on previously obtained intelligence) by the US government. This is neither a new revelation for Ahmadinejad nor for the world community in general. In his letter to Bush, Ahmadinejad wrote,

"Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services - or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren't those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?"

In questioning the job done by American intelligence agencies, and questioning the US government's official version of events and responsibility, in the lead-up to September 11th, the Iranian President isn't alone.


Esfahan is Half the World, and Half the World Questions the 9/11 Story

To read the hysterical reports about his recent 9/11 comments questioning the accepted story of the event, one would think that Ahmadinejad is voicing roundly rejected, widely unpopular, and insanely outrageous conspiracy theories, devoid of any reasonable evidence or public support. This is hardly the case.

In fact, Ahmadinejad is in the company of more than half of planet Earth, half of New Yorkers, and almost half of all Americans. His views are not particularly uncommon, let alone unique. They surely don't demonstrate a lunatic fringe viewpoint, but rather an opinion well within the public discourse, though not often discussed by Western media.

Whereas the 9/11 Commission was officially "created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002...to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks," a plurality of the public believe this goal was not successfully accomplished and have doubts about the Commission's findings.

An August 2004 Zogby poll, conducted right after the Commission's report was made public and just days before the Republican National Convention was held in Manhattan, found that over 49% of New York City residents and 41% of New York State citizens say that at least some US government officials "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act."

Another Zogby poll from May 2006 found that 42% of Americans believe that "the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks" and said "there has been a cover-up." Another ten percent of respondents were unsure. The same poll found that 44% of Americans believe that "the Bush Administration exploited the September 11th attacks" in order to advance its own foreign policy agenda in the Middle East, namely, "to justify the invasion of Iraq."

Furthermore, 45% of those polled agree that "so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success," while eight percent remain "unsure."

A Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll from July 2006 discovered that "More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East."

The next year, in May 2006, a Rasmussen poll revealed that "overall, 22% of all voters believe the President [sic] knew about the attacks in advance," while "a slightly larger number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance."

Between May 2002 and October 2006, polls conducted by The New York Times and CBS News found that upwards of 79% of the American public believed that "When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States," members of the Bush Administration were either "mostly telling the truth but hiding something," "mostly lying," or "not sure." In those four and a half years, the number of respondents convinced that the government was "mostly lying" grew by 20%.

A September 2008 World Public Opinion survey, asked "16,000 people in 17 countries who they thought was responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington." The results showed that "majorities in only nine of the 17 countries believed that al-Qaida was behind the attacks." In response, WPO director Steven Kull stated,

"Broadly, I think what this tells us is that there is a lack of confidence in the United States around the world. It is striking that even among our allies, the numbers that say al-Qaida was behind 9/11 do not get above two-thirds, and barely become a majority. So this is a real indication that the United States is not in a strong position to, in a sense, tell its story. The American narrative is not as powerful in the world today."

Evidence aside, the mainstream media presents Ahmadinejad's recent statements as if they represent an outlandish theory based upon nothing more than paramount insanity.


Wiping Context Off the Map

Disingenuously reporting that Ahmadinejad called 9/11 a "big lie" without exploring the context his statement, notably his claim that 9/11 was used as a "pretext" to carry out the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, is much akin to headlines announcing that Ahmadinejad threatens to "wipe out" Israel without presenting the statement in full. For instance, a Jerusalem Post article from December 12, 2006 and entitled "Ahmadinejad: Israel will be 'wiped out'" states in the first paragraph that the Iranian President "vowed once again that Israel would be 'wiped out.'" Only later in the piece does writer Herb Keinon reproduce the entire quote, which reveals a contextually vital qualification:

"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom...[elections should be held among] Jews, Christians and Muslims so the population of Palestine can select their government and destiny for themselves in a democratic manner."

Similarly, press reports from the previous fall, which sparked the entire "wiped off the map" fiasco, failed to tell their readers the whole story. In that speech, analyst Arash Norouzi explains, "Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West's apparatus of political oppression against Muslims. He says the 'Zionist regime' was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets." Apparently, in his reading of history, Ahmadinejad was simply reiterating the suggestions of Zionism's founder Theodor Herzl. In chapter 2 of his 1896 manifesto, Der Judenstaat, Herzl wrote,

"We [Jews] should there form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. We should as a neutral State remain in contact with all Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence."

Ahmadinejad reminded his audience that, while the eventual weakening or complete dissolution of America's hegemony over the Middle East via its colonial-settler garrison state may be unthinkable or unimaginable to some, "as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books." He listed the Shah's tyrannical monarchy in Iran, the repressive and expansionist Soviet Union, and the Iraqi dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, as examples of "regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished" in only the past three decades. In conclusion, Ahmadinejad repeated Khomeini's prescient view that the political demise of the Zionist government of Israel would soon follow: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

Of course, all we've ever heard from Western press reports is that Ahmadinejad threatened to "wipe Israel off the map," an idiom that doesn't even exist in the Persian language, and that was the end of the discussion.


Confusing "Pretext" with "Pretense"

When Ahmadinejad speaks about historical events acting as pretexts to subsequent injustices, he is not claiming that the first event never happened, but simply stating that the event served to justify what followed. This pretext, then, is the exploitation of terrible tragedies as an excuse, motive, and ostensible reason ascribed to explain what historically occurred next. Using horrific events to nefarious advantage is what Naomi Klein has essentially defined as "The Shock Doctrine." This is what Ahmadinejad has spoken about when he uses the term "pretext," which is why, in his speech on Saturday, he stated that "Depredation, bullying and killing the reality of humanity are the outcomes of the capitalist way of thinking."

Unfortunately, the media has decided to equate the term "pretext" with "pretense" and insist that they are both identical synonyms for a claim, invention, myth, fabrication, or lie. With this in mind, it is easy to see how the demonization campaign of Ahmadinejad has been so successful.

This deliberate misinterpretation is not at all new. Even though it is commonplace in the press to insist that Ahmadinejad is a virulent anti-Semite who believes the Nazi holocaust never happened, this is an absurd suggestion unsupported by the facts.

When, at last April's Durban II conference, Ahmadinejad addressed the founding of the State of Israel in 1948 by stating, "As was the case after World War II, armies occupied other territories and people were transferred from territories...In reality, under the pretext of compensating for the evil done in the name of xenophobia, they in fact set up the most violent xenophobes, in Palestine."

He continued, "The Security Council made it possible for that illegitimate government to be set up. For 60 years, this government was supported by the world. Many Western countries say they are fighting racism; but in fact support it with occupation, bombings and crimes such as those committed in Gaza. These countries support the criminals."

The media reported that Ahmadinejad called the holocaust a myth, which promoted a pre-staged walkout by attending European delegations. But the usage of the word "pretext" is obvious to anyone willing to actually read.

While attending the opening of the United Nation's 64th General Assembly Session in September 2009, Ahmadinejad was interviewed by Steve Inskeep, host of National Public Radio's Morning Edition program, who asked him about his thoughts on the holocaust. While Ahmadinejad responded that the holocaust itself "is a historical event," he wondered why "this specific event has become so prominent" in the policy decisions of Western politicians and asked whether "this event effect[s] what is happening on the ground this day, now?"

He continued, "What we say is that genocide is the result of racial discrimination...and I can see that genocide is happening now under the pretext of an event that happened 60 years ago...Why should the Palestinian people make up for it?"

Again, the use of the word pretext here clearly refers to using Nazi war crimes and crimes against humanity as a justification for the subsequent ethnic cleansing, dispossession, displacement, disenfranchisement, occupation, and continued "slow genocide" of the Palestinian people.

Ahmadinejad's 2009 comments repeat remarks he previously wrote back in early September 2006, in a letter sent to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. In it, Ahmadinejad stated, "World War II came to an end with all its material and moral losses and its 60 million casualties. The death of human beings is tragic and sad. In all divine religions and before all awakened conscience and pure nature of mankind and the sense of right and wrong, the life, property and honor of people, regardless of their religious persuasion and ethnic background, must be respected at all times and all places."

By accepting the 60 million death toll of World War II, how could Ahmadinejad be denying the mechanized ethnic cleansing of millions of European Jews? He continued,

"Honorable Chancellor

I have no intention of arguing about the Holocaust. But, does it not stand to reason that some victorious countries of World War II intended to create an alibi on the basis of which they could continue keeping the defeated nations of World War II indebted to them. Their purpose has been to weaken their morale and their inspiration in order to obstruct their progress and power. In addition to the people of Germany, the peoples of the Middle East have also borne the brunt of the Holocaust. By raising the necessity of settling the survivors of the Holocaust in the land of Palestine, they have created a permanent threat in the Middle East in order to rob the people of the region of the opportunities to achieve progress. The collective conscience of the world is indignant over the daily atrocities by the Zionist occupiers, destruction of homes and farms, killing of children, assassinations and bombardments.

Excellency, you have seen that the Zionist government does not even tolerate a government elected by the Palestinian people, and over and over again has demonstrated that it recognizes no limit in attacking the neighboring countries."

If Ahmadinejad's point still isn't clear, he elaborates:

"Using the excuse for the settlement of the survivors of the Holocaust, they encouraged the Jews worldwide to migrate and today a large part of the inhabitants of the occupied territories are non-European Jews. If tyranny and killing is condemned in one part of the world, can we acquiesce and go along with tyranny, killing, occupation and assassinations in another part of the world simply in order to redress the past wrongs?"

The question is not whether the holocaust happened or not, rather, it is how that horrendous tragedy has been exploited in order to justify the establishment of a "Jewish State" in Palestine and rob indigenous Palestinians of their own rights to self-determination. The issue is not to call history into question, but rather to explore the consequences of historical acts.

Furthermore, Ahmadinejad has always made a stark distinction between Jewish people and Zionists. He has said on numerous occasions that his opposition to a Jewish State is a political and ideological one, and not to be confused with a violent ultimatum or military threat to the Israeli people. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly said that Iran has "no problem with people and nations" and that Iran does "not have any confrontation with anyone. We seek relations based on respect and justice." Even more specifically, in a 2008 CNN interview with Larry King, he stated quite clearly that "we don't have a problem with the Jewish people."

Just to be extra clear, Ahmadinejad declared, "We are opposed to the idea that the people who live there should be thrown into the sea or be burnt," reiterating his belief in self-determination of all people based upon elections: "We believe that all the people who live there [in Israel and Palestine], the Jews, Muslims and Christians, should take part in a free referendum and choose their government."

The Iranian president's desire to see democratic elections determine the future government for all those living together in historic Palestine was once again repeated in his address to the United Nations General Assembly on September 23, 2009, as he called for the "restoration of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people by organizing a referendum and free elections in Palestine in order to prepare a conducive ground for all Palestinian populations, including Muslims, Christians and Jews to live together in peace and harmony."

Even during his widely lambasted Durban II speech, Ahmadinejad clearly demarcated the distinction between the 19th century colonial ideology of Jewish nationalism and the Jewish religion, stating, "The word Zionism personifies racism that falsely resorts to religion and abuses religious sentiments to hide their hatred and ugly faces."

Despite the fact that Ahmadinejad called for an "end to Zionism," countless news agencies erroneously reported that he sought the "destruction of Israel," and numerous commentators, including British ambassador Peter Gooderham, called these remarks "anti-Semitic."

In his piece about Ahmadinejad's 9/11 statement on Saturday, The New York Times' Robert Mackey, reminded his readers about comments made by the Iranian President during an International al-Quds (Jerusalem) Day rally on September 18, 2009, a national celebration in solidarity with the Palestinian people and in opposition to Zionism. Mackey, who refers to Quds Day as "Iran’s annual anti-Israel day," writes that Ahmadinejad told the crowd that "The pretext for the creation of the Zionist regime is false...It is a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim." Again, the pretext of the holocaust is not at all the same thing as a lie.

The holocaust, as an historical occurrence admitted to by its own perpetrators in Europe and widely described as the systematic and mechanized murder of millions of Jews (as well as millions of homosexuals, Romani gypsies, Communists, political prisoners, and trade unionists), is not being called a lie in this statement. Considering that the indigenous people of Palestine bear no responsibility for the atrocities committed by the Nazis, the consequences of the holocaust, however, as it was used to justify the creation of Israel in Palestine, is what Ahmadinejad states is based on a "mythical claim." This becomes quite clear by listening to the very next line of Ahmadniejad's speech, unreported by Mackey or anyone else in the Western press: "The occupation of Palestine has no connection with the issue of the holocaust."

Later in the Quds Day speech, Ahmadinejad once again made sure to distinguish between Judaism and Zionism:

"The Zionists have no faith. It is a big lie that the Zionists should be considered tantamount to the Jews or the Christians. Zionists are not Jews nor Christians, and, rather, the Zionists seek to destroy all the values brought about by the divine prophets...the basis of Zionism is to destroy human culture and human values and the values of all nations."

Iran itself has an ancient community of over 25,000 Jews, the second largest Jewish population in the Middle East after Israel itself. Along with Ahmadinejad, Siamak Morsadegh, the Jewish Iranian legislator and community leader, has criticized Israel's policies towards Palestinians, especially in Gaza, saying it showed "anti-human behavior...they kill innocent people," and continuing that the Jewish community in Iran does "not recognize a government or a nation for the Zionist regime."


"A New Pearl Harbor"

That Ahmadinejad - along with millions and millions of others around the world - would find the official story of 9/11 suspicious is not without good cause.

A year before the September 11, 2001 attacks, neocon think tank Project for a New American Century, published a 90-page manifesto for a imperially dominant American Empire, urging "that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces." Among its aims, the report, entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century, calls for the United States to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars" and achieve "a global security order that is uniquely friendly to American principles and prosperity."

PNAC's members, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Eliot Abrams, Zalmay Khalilzad, Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, Norman Podhoretz, John Bolton, Scooter Libby, and Richard Perle, believed that "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." Maybe those many PNAC members who, later that year, were subsequently appointed to top level positions in Bush's new administration didn't want to wait that long for such a galvanizing moment in order to pursue their own agenda of unilateral preemptive invasions of Middle Eastern countries.

When Ahmadinejad speaks of 9/11 as involving a "complicated intelligence scenario and act," shouldn't the media perhaps contextualize his statement by discussing the exaggerated and manipulated 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident which was largely responsible for launching the American military campaign in Vietnam, the 1954 Israeli false flag operations known as the Lavon Affair conducted against Egypt, or the planned, but never implemented, Operation Northwoods scheme in 1962 concocted by the U.S. Department of Defense to instigate a war with Cuba (one of the plans consisted of hijacking an airplane and blaming the new Castro regime)?

Iran Affairs' Cyrus Safdari reminds us of "Emad Salem, an undercover FBI informant who had infiltrated the group that carried out the first WTC bombing back in 1993. He was smart enough to record his conversations with the FBI. Turns out, he specifically warned the FBI of the bombing, and offered to replace the bomb material with a harmless substance, but the FBI said no." What about the completely bogus, but thoroughly hyped, "Newburgh bomb plot" to bomb synagogues in Riverdale, NY and fire a missile at a US military jet, which was entirely set up by FBI informant Shahed Hussain?

What about the 2007 statement by National Medal of Science laureate Lynn Margulis in which she referred to 9/11 as a "new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties"? Or former CIA Middle East operative Robert Baer, who has written, "Until we get a complete, honest, transparent investigation - not one based on 'confession' extracted by torture - we will never know what happened on 9/11." Or former senior CIA official Bill Christison, who wrote that there is a "strong body of evidence showing the official US government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies." What about the other CIA officials who question the official story?

What about the Guardian report from November 1, 2001 which revealed that, according to French intelligence officials, "Two months before September 11 Osama bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent"?

What about the mysterious collapse of Tower 7, Able Danger, the failure to scramble jets, the myriad National Security experts denied, ignored, or censored from the 9/11 Commission report, the hundreds of professional architects and engineers calling upon Congress to order a new investigation into the destruction of the World Trade Center, deception and non-cooperation by the Department of Defense, whistle-blowers like Coleen Rowley, supposed short-selling and text message warnings, or the five dancing Israelis seen watching and videotaping the attacks from New Jersey's Liberty State Park across the Hudson River?

What about the British intelligence report, entitled "Responsibility for the terrorist atrocities in the United States," which purports to provide evidence that "Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the terrorist network which he heads, planned and carried out the atrocities on 11 September 2001, yet begins with the following disclaimer: "This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law"?

What about the BBC report, entitled "The investigation and the evidence," which concludes, "There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks...At best the evidence is circumstantial."

What about the evidence that, in no verified audio or video tapes, has bin Laden actually claimed responsibility for the attacks, yet has even been quoted as stating, "I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act...we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed."

What about the fact that Osama bin Laden is, to this very day, not specifically wanted in connection with the 9/11 attacks, according to the FBI's own Most Wanted List?

As a result, is there not plenty of dubious information and spurious evidence surrounding the official story of the September 11 attacks to warrant some sort of suspicion, regardless of what you may personally think actually happened? In this way, with his recent comments, President Ahmadinejad has given voice to the majority of the world. But clearly, for fear they might stumble upon some uncomfortable truths, it appears easier for the mainstream media to decontextualize his statements and label him a crackpot conspiracy theorist who is a danger to the American way of life, thus leading the United States down the path to attacking a third Middle Eastern country, than to do its own job.

By misrepresenting the country of Iran, its people, its system of government, its culture, its religion, its elected and unelected leaders, the Western press has already set the stage for an attack on the Islamic Republic. Because of the media's sensational and propagandistic reporting, 71% of Americans already believing that Iran currently possesses nuclear weapons. 90% think that the power of Iran's military poses either a critical or important "threat to U.S. vital interests" (despite the fact that Iran's military budget is literally one hundred times smaller than that of the US). 59% of American citizens even support unilateral, preemptive US military action against Iran regardless of whether economic or diplomatic efforts achieve the government's desired effect.

Perhaps, as was seen with the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, the press is doing exactly what the US government wants it to do.

Nima Shirazi
mail e-mail: wideasleepinamerica@gmail.com
- Homepage: http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2010/03/nejad-vu-all-over-again-medias.html


AHMEDINEJAD MEETS WITH THE ANTI-WAR LEFT

27.09.2010 19:36

IT WAS NOT GENERALLY KNOWN THAT ON TUESDAY, HE HAD MET WITH ABOUT TWO HUNDRED ANTI-WAR AND LEFT-LEANING ACTIVISTS AT THE WARWICK HOTEL IN MIDTOWN MANHATTAN.

Including:

RAMSEY CLARK, CYNTHIA MCKINNEY, RAMONA AFRICA

WBAI FRED NGUYEN WAS AT THE MEETING AND HE FILES THIS REPORT

caps locked
- Homepage: http://radio4all.net/index.php/program/45810


less = more. STOP SPAMMING INDYMEDIA!

27.09.2010 20:17

Sometimes, less is more. Faced with a wall of text like the ones posted on here, most people just skip over it to the smaller comments and stories. Not to mention the same text is posted in dozens of other places too.

The web has hyperlinks for a reason - you don't have to copy and paste the same thing to loads of places. If you really think Indymedia readers are interested in half-baked right-wing conspiracy theories, just link to the original, for fuck's sake.

anon


The 9-11 Truth movement has won the day

28.09.2010 01:30

The 9-11 Truth movement has, in my opinion, won the day, it's case is too strong and too credible to brush off and so now, it's only a matter of time and gathering towards critical mass of public opinion. This situation has been brought about by the many people who have done the hard yards to contribute substance to the facts, apply astute logical analysis and articulate the case. Principal among the facts are the now irrefutable case of free-fall collapse (proving the complete absence of structural resistance) and the presence of thermite in large quantities (as the prime explanation for the absence of structural resistance). These facts create the magnetic field of force that attracts, aligns and solidifies the many other salient facts of the evidence into a monumentally persuasive case for what should have been obvious on 11 September 2001 - planned demolition and government involvement. We owe a lot to Niels Harrit and a high-school physics teacher. Principal among the analysis and articulation is the work of David Ray Griffin and others who have obviously thought it through with academic rigour and have had not only the intellectual might and eloquence to achieve it but also the will and the skill to get their message out. They provide a base for the many, humble foot soldiers of the 9-11 Truth movement to work from and take the message further.

The 9-11 Truth movement would do well to focus on this achievement and concentrate on doing the work of getting the message out - everything from discussing the issue wherever possible to arranging presentations and events that draw attention to the case, persuade skeptics and get people speaking out and acting up where it counts. It is the body of evidence and coherent articulation of the case that is the strength of 9-11 Truth.

Buying into frivolous discussion about the credentials and other opinions of people who share the fundamental beliefs of 9-11 Truth wastes the time, energy and opportunities of people whose primary task and responsibility is to propagate the message that has been so capably analysed, substantiated and articulated do demand re-examination of 9-11.

There is no better example than the case of Ahmadinejad and his UN speech. Why buy into arguments about the holocaust or the legitimacy of the Iranian government?

There are those of us who happen to believe that this man asks the highly relevant questions and asks them in exactly the right forum:

* the tolerance for persecution of Palestinians and Israeli disregard for International Law, based essentially on holocaust propaganda and for strategic designs of the US

* the hypocrisy of nuclear disarmament rhetoric by nations that possess, have used, proliferate and constantly threaten to use nuclear weapons

* the imbalance of power and hegemony inherent in the UN, which should be the democratic epicentre of international law and justice

* the gross imbalance of wealth, development and resource flows between nations and the blatant injustice associated with it

If the death of a young woman demonstrator (vigorously publicised in the west) is taken as evidence of an oppressive regime then the UK should take note of the shooting of John Menezes and the death of David Tomlinson and in the US, where silencing of dissent is far more advanced (Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, George Jackson, JFK etc.) the 9-11 Truth movement should be considering the number of conspicuously suspicious deaths associated with 9-11 alone. If the number of political prisoners is an indication then one should look at the 2M mostly poor and black prisoners in the US - and the Cuban Five, or the 10,000 Palestinians in Israeli prisons, some of them for no other reason than that they are elected Hamas MPs, or the types of "democracies" cloned into Afghanistan and Iraq.

If Ahmadinejad were a holocaust denier there is a substantial case to support him (when it becomes illegal to question the accepted wisdom you can be certain there is good reason to question the accepted wisdom). However, when you actually hear him speak for himself you can easily find that he distinctly and explicitly acknowledges the holocaust - as a EUROPEAN event for which the Palestinians should not be paying the price. When he argues the case that exaggeration and misrepresentation of the holocaust is being used as a blind to cover the disgraceful outrages of Israel and persecution of Palestinians then he is far from alone or anti-semitic - there are a good many jews who align quite well with his opinions. His regime is, as a matter of indisputable fact, democratic and if there are questions about the legitimacy of Iranian elections there are FAR more questions and indeed obvious dishonesties in those of the US.

But THIS IS NOT THE POINT.

Even if all the disparagement of Ahmadinejad and his regime were valid, deserved and justified it has ZERO effect on the substance of the 9-11 case. For those of the 9-11 Truth movement who shake in their boots for fear that the movement's "credibility will be damaged" by association with Ahmadinejad there is a distinct failure to recognise that 9-11 Truth has overcome the global barrage of ridicule as a "looney conspiracy theory" and worse from a corporate media that has universal, daily reach to the minds of the masses.

The success of 9-11 Truth has been achieved on the substance of it's case; solid facts, sound analysis and high quality articulation, not reputations.

Many people with substantial reputations have put them on the line in supporting 9-11 Truth. The signatures of some 1500 architects and engineers carries weight that has been a significant contribution; but is not the real foundation of success. While Niels Harrit, for example, has a solid career as a scientist and put his reputation on the line the real boon for 9-11 Truth has not been his reputation but the fact that he has delivered peer-reviewed, verifiable science that is irrefutable. Similarly, a humble physics teacher pointed out the verifiable fact that many educated people already know and should have realised long ago - that free-fall is obvious, measurable and is of profound significance. This was not a matter of reputation.

My advice to people who are quaking in these fears is that you need to be more aware of where the strength of the movement lies and turn your efforts to getting that message out and getting people to become passionate about it. You have more to gain than to fear from what Ahmadinejad has to say

As to the people of Iran my advice would be that if they have doubts as to whether Ahmadinejad should have their full and unequivocal support at the present time, they need only look to their neighbours in Iraq. But I daresay they don't need my advice for that. Indeed, if ever US troops have the folly to march on Tehran it's my guess they will not be met by flower-throwing, grateful Iranians or even fleeing Iranian soldiers in their underwear. But we shall see.

Allen L. Jasson
mail e-mail: allen.jasson@rightofchoice.com
- Homepage: http://www.warcrimes.org.uk


Publish

Publish your news

Do you need help with publishing?

/regional publish include --> /regional search include -->

World Topics

Afghanistan
Analysis
Animal Liberation
Anti-Nuclear
Anti-militarism
Anti-racism
Bio-technology
Climate Chaos
Culture
Ecology
Education
Energy Crisis
Fracking
Free Spaces
Gender
Globalisation
Health
History
Indymedia
Iraq
Migration
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Palestine
Policing
Public sector cuts
Repression
Social Struggles
Technology
Terror War
Workers' Movements
Zapatista

Kollektives

Birmingham
Cambridge
Liverpool
London
Oxford
Sheffield
South Coast
Wales
World

Other UK IMCs
Bristol/South West
London
Northern Indymedia
Scotland

Server Appeal Radio Page Video Page Indymedia Cinema Offline Newsheet

secure Encrypted Page

You are viewing this page using an encrypted connection. If you bookmark this page or send its address in an email you might want to use the un-encrypted address of this page.

If you recieved a warning about an untrusted root certificate please install the CAcert root certificate, for more information see the security page.

IMCs


www.indymedia.org

Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Africa

Europe
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
brussels
bulgaria
calabria
croatia
cyprus
emilia-romagna
estrecho / madiaq
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
liguria
lille
linksunten
lombardia
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
napoli
netherlands
northern england
nottingham imc
paris/île-de-france
patras
piemonte
poland
portugal
roma
romania
russia
sardegna
scotland
sverige
switzerland
torun
toscana
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
chiapas
chile
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso
venezuela

Oceania
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
perth
qc
sydney

South Asia
india


United States
arizona
arkansas
asheville
atlanta
Austin
binghamton
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
dc
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
sarasota
seattle
tampa bay
united states
urbana-champaign
vermont
western mass
worcester

West Asia
Armenia
Beirut
Israel
Palestine

Topics
biotech

Process
fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech